Quote of the Day – LawDog (1/31/2013)

And when it comes down to brass tacks, the individual is the only person ultimately responsible for his — or her — own safety. Part of that responsibility involves being able to defend your own self, with appropriate tools.

Gun control is denying you those tools in exchange for the nebulous assurance that the police will “do their best”.

“Doing their best” oft involves putting a toe-tag on your corpse and finding the guy that killed you so that he can plea bargain his way out of an extended sentence, but that’s gun control for you.

LawDogGun-Free does not equal Violence-Free
January 30th, 2013


[First, go read his whole post and watch the linked video.  That is by far the best example I have ever seen to show the complete and utter failure that gun-free-zones are.

Lastly, those paragraphs are the central point of this debate and you either admit this harsh reality, or you pretend that unicorn farts do exist and you want the force of state to coerce others into giving up their tools for non-existent unicorn farts.

This is the world our opponents want.  This is the world many of our elected representatives want to force upon us.  Make no mistake, they want the strong to prey upon the weak and they want the state to have a total monopoly on force.  -B]

Fast and Furious, With Regards to the Cause

So if you didn’t read it, a couple of months ago I wrote a root cause analysis on the causes and reasons behind Operation Fast and Furious, also known as Operation Gun Walker.

Today Uncle posted a link to an article from CBS that stated the following:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

Think about that long and hard. These individuals broke the law willfully with an intent to create “necessity” for their new violations of the law.  Their new violation of the law was the gun control they wished to implement itself as it is a blatant violation of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Many have attempted to vilify the gun shops in this case saying they should have just not sold the weapons.  What these people are refusing to acknowledge is the ATF, through their regulatory power, forced these shops to sell to people the would have otherwise not sold weapons to.

Seriously, go read the CBS article, it’s is yet further evidence that validates my conclusions in the root cause analysis.

To add the icing to the cake though, I am reasonably sure the White House was aware of this program given Obama is now exercising “Executive Privilege” over the material.  I have no doubt this was his “under the radar” efforts at gun control.  As Jennifer said, “no one died when Nixon lied.

Quote of the Day–Joe Huffman (06/19/2012)

What is extraordinary here is that Issa didn’t have Federal Marshalls rip his jacket and shirt off, tie him face down on the table, stuff a copy of the subpoena in his mouth, give him 30 lashes with a bull whip, then tell him there would a whipping every day at 9:00 AM until he fully complied or his flesh had been stripped off and his bones were polished clean.

Joe HuffmanExtraordinary Offer

June 19th, 2012


[Personally I think Joe’s response would have been way too kind.  Give me a bucket, a rat, and a blow torch.  Some assembly required.  If you don’t know how it works, don’t worry about it, it prevents you from knowing how mean, evil, and sadistic my mind can be towards those who willingly endanger my friends and family in the name of destroying my rights.*

Don’t worry Joe, it’s not cruel or unusual.  At the time the Bill of Rights was written lashing was still a standard punishment on the high seas.  In fact so was keelhauling which I think would also be a fantastic venture for Mr. Holder. –B]

*In my defense, I would feel bad for the rat.

An Open Response to Joan Peterson

Joan,

One must be very careful when writing a response.  If you’re not careful you can come across as two possible things:

  1. A hypocrite
  2. Crazy

Your response (link warning) does both of those quite handedly.  So I am not sure you will be able to understand any of this or comprehend the logical reasoning, but as one of the men who is responsible for what the CSGV considers the most offensive response I can’t sit back and ignore this.  I cannot sit back and ignore it as you spread lies and attack those who are my friends.  My comments will remain open as always, and the only thing to be deleted from this thread will be SPAM, personal attacks, and things that wouldn’t be allowed in a decent society.

So first let me apologize since I have no doubt this post is going to go Kevin Baker.  So let’s get the broad facts out-of-the-way.


Fact:  On the 8th of January 2012 there was a  Brady Campaign organized vigil held for victims of Gun violence.  The Brady Campaign defined this vigil as being for victims of gun violence.  This statement was issued in a Youtube video posted December 18th, 2011.

“On January 8th, we’re focusing on people. Real people, men, women, and children.  Mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, friends and coworkers, Americans, taken too soon by gun violence.  On January 8th we ask you to take part in a nation wide candle light vigil to remember those who have been lost.  And to let our elected leaders know that we want action to prevent these tragedies….”

Those words are right straight out of the video from the Brady Campaign, and the video emphasizes that “Too Many Victims” was just about gun violence.

Update: Further the website (link warning) also stated:

“Imagine stopping a bullet before it kills a child. Impossible? Not with
your help! All across America people are coming together to save lives
from preventable gun violence. Will you join them, and the Brady
Campaign, as we host a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of
gun violence?”

via Joe


Fact:  Weer’d on or about the 28th of December issued a statement that gun-rights advocates should participate and memorialize all violence, not just gun violence.

So on January 8th I ask everybody to post a picture of a lit candle and you carry gun. Because lit candles don’t do a whole lot but cast a meager amount of light…but a loaded gun in the hands of lawful citizens can do wonders to protect innocent lives from harm.

Also “Gun Violence” is a bogus and made-up term, so on January 8th I ask you all to light a candle to stop VIOLENCE, and show you have the means to do just that.


Fact: On the 8th of January a pair of gun bloggers and a group of USPSA competitors created a video of their vigil to violence.  This was a vigil to all violence, not just gun violence.  Shooters iterated how candles don’t stop violence.  One shooter, myself, relayed a personal story.

Both of my parents had defensive gun uses, it wasn’t a candle that stopped the violence, it was a gun.

It closed with remembrance to two victims of violence.

A candle would not have helped Kim’s husband who was stabbed.

Nor would it have helped her grandmother who was violently beaten for her purse.

That video focused on remembering violence and illustrating two important facts.

  1. You don’t have to be a victim.  You can fight back.
  2. There are more victims out there than just victims of “gun violence”.

Fact: There was a very nasty response to our vigil for all victims of violence with our statement of how we refuse to be a victim.

image_2_3

This included name calling and another outing rampage by the CSGV.  The CSGV on their Facebook also twisted words attempting to turn our vigil into something it was not.

CSGV-Correction

image via Miguel


Fact:  The Anti-Rights supporters have a history of threatening rhetoric and ill will towards who have different view points.  Unlike you, when I make a statement, I present facts and evidence to prove it.

CSGV_Harm1

This isn’t a one time occurrence either.

CSGV_Harm2

See this post from Joe as well for even more.


Now lets talk about your response.  Your response towards Jennifer shows your lack of critical thinking.  Writing in red is Joan’s own words.

So Jennifer thinks no one would light a candle for Lydia? Who says? Why didn’t Jennifer come to one of our vigils and light a candle for Lydia? Because she would rather attack the vigils which were in honor and memory of shooting victims. So, Jennifer-sorry you missed our vigils. We would welcome you.

Did you even read the story of Lydia?  Joan, you stated right there in your own words that Lydia wasn’t welcome.  The Brady Campaign video as shown above in the facts that Lydia wouldn’t count as a victim in your vigil.  Lydia wasn’t a victim of “gun violence” so why would she be included?

There is only one option as to why you would want other victim classes to appear at your vigil for gun violence.  You want to dance in their blood as well to make it appear they are victims of gun violence to provide you another political tool.

The real reason you dislike Jennifer’s post is because it shows your bias against other victims of violence.  Jennifer herself is a victim, yet you attack her without thinking about what she is saying.

You specifically call out comments that prove what I have said above.  My personal favorite is that you attacked the comment from A Girl and Her Gun.

That is more powerful than anything Joan or the likes of her could ever say.You are the one I admire. The one who fights for the victims and for the fight against violence. I am immensely thankful I am getting to get to know you. Also, Joan is stupid.

A Girl and Her Gun is another victim of violence Joan.  You even point it out earlier in your post as if some how citing it makes it irrelevant.

The truth is though it’s that other victims of violence make you uncomfortable Joan.  They illustrate that Gun Violence is a horrible metric and ignores a large segment of the population.  Gun violence implies that those victims are some how worth more than someone who was violated without the use of a gun.

You say the following:

These are the people who read my blog and then go and comment on other people’s blogs. These are the people who the NRA represents. These are the people who think they can threaten, demean, name-call, abuse, belittle, and mock. During and after the candlelight vigils  to honor victims of gun violence, the gun rights extremists ramped up their rhetoric.

When did we threaten, demean, name-call, abuse, belittle or mock?  We didn’t ramp up our rhetoric, we called for remembering all victims of violence, not just the one’s you find politically convenient.  Which brings us to the next part of your statement.

Victims make them nervous. They don’t like victims. They say we are “dancing in the blood of victims” when we light candles and ring bells. What’s that all about anyway? It’s a statement made often.

I’m down right offended at that statement.  I absolutely care about anyone who is a victim.  I will do anything and everything to help them recover.  What we don’t like, and despise, is some victims being treated as if they are some how not significant or worthy of notice.  We don’t like the fact that anyone has become a victim in any type of crime.  Victims, the real ones, we love and support.  What we do want to accomplish is to lower the victimization rate.  Where you would prefer the law-abiding disarmed, we would prefer them to fight back.  We are willing to spend our time and money to help people not become victims.

Here is a nice presentation of the differences between our culture and yours with regards to how we treat victims.

Now why would I make a comment about “real victims”?  Well it’s because in your effort to inflate your gun violence statistics you include criminals in your count.  Criminals such as the man who broke into a woman’s house with a 12 inch hunting knife after she just lost her husband.  The woman shot and killed the attacker, yet you include him as a “Victim of Gun Violence”.  You know who was the real victim in that incident?  The poor woman who was not breaking the law and was forced into a situation to defend herself and her child.

Who really cares about victims Joan?  I wanted that woman and her child to survive.  I wanted that store clerk at the Kroger’s robbery to remain unharmed.  You however step up and defend the criminal.  You wanted that poor woman to be shot so she could be another clear-cut victim for you to exploit for political gains.  That’s why you’re a blood dancer.  You prey upon the suffering of others to push your political agenda.  Even with the positive outcome, you actively pursued the incident in furthering gun control.

There is a distinct difference in reaction after a horrible event occurs between our cultures Joan.  While we immediately lower our head in mourning, sad at what we have lost.  You go into overdrive pushing political legislation, giddy inside at the fuel it provides to pull at the emotional strings of the public.  You know when people are emotional they very rarely are thinking rationally.

Then you continue with:

What these folks don’t see is that their rigid resistance to any common sense gun laws that might actually prevent some of the shootings in this country results in more victims. Do they want more shooting victims? It’s odd that they don’t see how failure to do something has resulted in more victims.

That’s the thing Joan, we care about all victims.  Even more than that we want to enable people to have a choice and not be forced into victimhood.  As for the last sentence, your assumption is that doing anything is some how good.  What if you’re actions actually raise violent crime?  Oh that’s right, you would consider more overall crime for less gun crime a win.

And then, cynically, they try to find their own victims. The truth is that there are too many victims and they know it.

Are you questioning whether or not A Girl and Her Gun or Jennifer are victims of violence?  If so Joan, that’s just so wrong it’s not even funny.  You’re less of a victim than they are since they both experienced it in the first person, they have the point of view of your sister, not yourself.  Now if you’re not questioning that, are you saying we can’t find victims of Gun Control?   Because lets ask Suzanna Hupp about that one.  Honestly any victim in a gun free zone is a victim of gun control.  They have had their choice regarding their own self-defense made for them.

There are too many victims and it’s baffling that someone would be saying that victims should be disarmed.

So to the pro gun bloggers who find it amusing to mock victims and survivors of gun violence, your words are here for all to see and they aren’t pretty. They portray a group of people who seem to believe that anything can be written with no consequences. Their voices represent a few loud, obnoxious and offensive people who are attempting to influence public policy in our country. Shame on anyone for listening to the voices of these people. We should all be offended.

Again, you say we were mocking, where were we mocking?  Our words aren’t pretty because we’re telling the truth Joan.  You don’t find them pretty because the facts don’t support your false view of the world.  As for our voices only representing a few loud people, here’s a loud dose of truth.  Our impromptu effort that was completely unorganized resulted in well over a hundred of blog posts talking about victims they know and how they themselves are going to refuse to be a victim.  So if we’re in the minority, why isn’t our video disliked overwhelmingly?

That’s the difference between us Joan, you memorialize the past and twist history to infringe the rights of others.  We on the other hand memorialize, learn, and act.  We learned from our friends and family who were victims.  We learned that there is evil in the world and you don’t know when it will arrive on your door step.

You attempt to shame people for seeking more knowledge on the subject.  Here I am reading your post, I find it deplorable that someone could so readily come to the defense of criminals by attacking the law-abiding, but I’m not saying you don’t have a right to say it.  You’re upset because you don’t want people to see the truth.  You don’t want people to realize that they don’t have to be a victim, that they can fight back, and if they do fight back they can win.  You want us to be silent, well many of us would rather speak up because we find our lives worth it.

And one last thing- I wonder how the bloggers and the people who comment on them would like to see things like this said about them in public? It’s something to consider before posting offensive things about another person. Do people like this think they can say anything on the internet? Do they know the person on the other end of the offensive and rude comment are humans with feelings and families and friends who fear for them when they see stuff like this? There’s the thing about “turning the other cheek” and there’s the thing about “doing unto your neighbors”. Those are things I learned in my church and practice every day.

I don’t hide Joan.  I post blogs under my real name.  If you’re offended by us saying you don’t have to be a victim I suggest some serious therapy.  Who wants more victims in the world?  As for turning the other cheek and doing unto your neighbors, we do that.  We do it better than your side possibly can.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.
No hope.
No tools.
All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependence…
The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.
They have taught me to have belief in myself.
They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.
Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.
This is where I belong.
These are my people.

As for myself personally I stop and help people all the time.  I’m also ready should that person in need of help actually be a predator preying upon the good.  The best compliment I ever received was not even directed at me, it was someone explaining my character to someone else, “He’s an Eagle Scout both literally and figuratively.”  I am the guy that goes and shovels his elderly neighbors driveway and then turns around and helps the single mother next door with hers.  I’m the guy who will get up and Oh Dark Thirty and come get you because you just had an auto wreck and you’re car is totaled.  I am the guy who will go out of his way to help anyone.  I am not the guy however who will stand to the side and let evil triumph.  I am not the guy who will surrender to criminals who have violated me and thus surrendered the right for me to be civil to them.  I don’t know where it says in the Bible that I should surrender Gods greatest gift to a criminal.

I am reminded of a lesson told by OldNFO recently.

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, “My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.
“One is Evil -  It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
“The other is Good -  It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

Think long and hard about which wolf you are feeding Joan.  Our hand is extended to everyone Joan, any victim can come to us seeking help, and we will help them.  I will live my life with zero regrets and I resent people trying to force regrets upon me.  In the words of Sean Sorrentino:

When I reach the Pearly Gates, I want the first thing I will hear to be “Unload and show clear.” I don’t ever want to hear, “Why weren’t you carrying your gun?” Or worse “Because you weren’t carrying, your wife will be along as soon as her killer finishes up.”

If I were to arrive in heaven prematurely and not have fought every step of the way I feel that god would be disappointed that I would waste such a wonderful gift.  Those who would force others to waste that gift are most guilty of that sin.

I also wonder if these folks have mothers, sisters, children, brothers who see what they write and what they would think about their father, brother, son or daughter writing such vile things on the internet for all to see. At least I know that my integrity is in tact because I don’t choose to deploy tactics such as these. No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post.

Lastly Joan, my mom does read my blog.  She sees exactly what I write.  Sadly my father passed away, but I know he would be proud of me for standing up to those who would force victimhood on others.  My mom is proud that I am willing to stand up and say what needs to be said despite the fear that I would be disliked for speaking my mind.  Being despised by someone who would force others to be disarmed and strip away their rights is not an insult to me Joan.  It is a badge of honor and one that I will gladly carry with me until the day I die.

As for my integrity I have a very strict set of rules to protect it.  I do so because “Integrity once lost can never be regained.”  As such I never make a statement that I am unwilling to defend in public.  This includes having open comments.  Integrity means being willing to stand up behind that which you say.

I suggest you really think long and hard about your response because you haven’t presented a single element to support your case.  Also those you attack are also standing out in the open willing to freely debate, yet you hide unwilling to defend your position in public.  That is a sign of someone who lacks integrity.

Fast and Furious, Root Cause Analysis

Currently Eric Holder is screaming that the cause of guns going into Mexico was because of a “lack of gun control.”  There’s one problem with that though, it is false.  Not only is that statement blatantly false but in light of the evidence, given Operation Fast and Furious, gun control is what allowed those guns to walk to Mexico.  While it may seem humorous and a joke, the fact is it’s true.

I have largely been silent on Fast and Furious for one major reason.  There are a lot of other people covering it better and more in-depth than I possibly could.

To start off for those who are familiar with the term, root cause analysis is something used in engineering to identify problems to come up with solutions that don’t just hide the problem.  Ultimately proper root cause analysis should trace the problem to a point where you can turn the issue on and off like a light switch.  Now we’re going to trace back through the events and find the point where we can turn this issue that would turn this problem on and off.

What was Fast and Furious?

Fast and Furious otherwise known as Operation Gunwalker, was an operation conducted by the ATF under the guise of busting Mexican drug cartels.  This was done by forcing FFLs to complete illegal firearms transactions, purchasing firearms and handing them over to known criminals, and otherwise circumventing current law for criminals.

The ATF didn’t just allow guns to flow into the hands of criminals, but actively encouraged the practice. They purposely cleared transactions that were flagged. They performed the straw purchases themselves, delivering the weapons to known criminals. They instructed dealers to go ahead with transactions the dealers could tell were not “honest”.

Often when agents had followed the firearms they were told by their superiors to let the recipients go and not to follow them.  All of these actions violated existing law, yet the cause, as purported by Eric Holder, was a lack of gun control.

How did gun control cause Fast and Furious though?

The most direct route is the fact that this whole program was done with the mind of expanding gun control.  New gun control legislation and powers were the motivator behind the program.  Even as the program crashes and burns, pushes for new legislation based of the inflated numbers of Fast and Furious keep appearing.  The results of the program were used to force the long arms registry and to bolster support for additional funding for the ATF.

However the actions of the ATF have common threads with different agencies.  It is all a quest for money and power.  So we have to look back further to where the ATF got the root of its power and what allowed them to use this power to try to gain more.

The ATF is responsible for overseeing FFLs and ensuring adherence to existing firearms laws.  The can put a business that works in firearms under faster than any other.  The agency can halt a FFLs license during an investigation which can easily put them out of business.  So when the ATF asks a FFL to do something illegal, there ATF has all the leverage to make the dealer comply.  The only other option is for the FFL to go out of business under the weight of the ATF.

The ATF gained this power and latitude under the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Unsurprisingly allegations of abuse led to the Firearm Owners Protection Act to attempt to rein in the ATF.  The FOPA also stated different registry’s were prohibited from being enacted or run by the ATF, one of which they are attempting in the wake of Fast and Furious.

The depth of the corruption within the ATF and its drive to seek power through runs even deeper back to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  This provided the ATF, which was under the department of the Treasury at the time, the ability to enforce the newly created firearms laws.  This law laid the foundation for what would become the power-hungry space the ATF occupies today.

Both the GCA 1968 and the NFA 1934 are both pieces of legislation made in the effort to regulate firearms and limit their ownership.  The ATF blatantly violated existing laws during Operation Fast and Furious and went through considerable effort to arm and traffic firearms to prohibited persons.  All the while the ATF was clamoring for more gun control.  However many law-abiding citizens were left jumping through the hoops and difficulties of the existing maze of firearms legislation despite the appearance of lax laws created by the ATF.

Conclusion, Gun Control is the root cause

The ATF completely disregarded existing laws and regulations in conducting operation gun walker.  Many of those coerced into participating were in a situation that allowed the ATF leverage over them because of existing gun control legislation.  The ATF during the operation was petitioning congress for more gun control legislation, which it would be responsible for enforcement.

The ATF was also petitioning congress for additional funding for two reasons.  The first was a claim of a lack of resources to enforce existing law, which was false since they were expending resources to actually circumvent it.  The second was that it would need additional funding for enforcement of the expanded programs.

The root cause of Fast and Furious is gun control itself.  Existing gun control legislation provided the ATF with leverage over FFLs to coerce them into transactions they knew to be criminal.  Gun control provided the ATF with the resources and power to organize and conduct the operation.  Lastly, gun control was the root cause of the operation itself.  The operation was conducted in an effort to create a crisis that would warrant the further restriction of firearms.  This restriction would either be that of ownership by law-abiding citizens, or that in preventing new purchase by a law-abiding citizen.

Without the GCA of 1968 the ATF would not have had the leverage over a FFL to coerce them into proceeding with an illegal sale.  Without the NFA of 1934 the ATF would have never been the power-hungry beast it is today.

To say that a lack of gun control allowed Operation Fast and Furious is like saying a lack of prohibition let the DEA allow drugs to be smuggled across the border.  Oh wait, bad analogy, the DEA took part in Fast and Furious too.

If a lack of gun control allowed Operation Fast and Furious then violating the law to commit a treasonous act of war against a friendly neighbor is lacking in laws as well.

Quote of the Day–Alan Andrews

A few years ago you could count on a raft of bad anti-gun laws getting passed after a nutjob killed someone. Now the gun banners can’t even get Obama to listen to them. –Alan

[Thankfully this is true.  I was very young when the original assault weapon ban occurred.  I had the benefit of growing up around firearms.  I got my first firearm when I was 8, first time I shot a firearm though I was three and a half, my dad said I grinned from ear to ear.  I remember coming home from school and my dad writing letters to congressman, because every time he turned around there was a new attack.  As I got older I began to see what was going on, especially when I fully learned about Ruby Ridge.  I was fully introduced to that incident when I was the same age as his son.  It was at that moment my whole view of the world changed.  I realized this wasn’t really about guns, it was about power and control.  Junior year of high school I discovered a book on one of the book shelves(we had lots of books).  The cover though caught my attention.

Amazingly it was unread even by my father, he did read it immediately after me in a 3 day binge.  I started reading it immediately.  In the begging while setting up the plot there were a few events that even I couldn’t believe that he was using to set the tone.  Sadly Google broke my heart and educated me to the actual gravity of the situation.  In another instance though I was provided hope.  I read that whole book in about a week, reading it even through my classes.

After reading Unintended Consequences I realized there was even more at stake than just power and control.  There’s a whole culture under attack.  Those outside of it don’t understand, but if you ever go to a major shooting event it becomes obvious, it’s a culture.

Thankfully the events at the end of that book have not come to pass yet.  Many throughout our culture have stepped up to educate and inform those on the outside.  Because of this the response has been considerably more constrained than it would have been even 7 years ago.

While the war certainly hasn’t been won, these events show us how far we’ve come.  Even more importantly it didn’t go down like the beginning of Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

If you haven’t read Unintended Consequences, I highly suggest you do.

-B

]

Update: Suppressor Laws In Washington–HB 1016-2011-12

As I posted earlier an attempt is being made to change the suppressor laws in Washington again.

This morning I got an email from Rep. Joe Schmick regarding it’s status. The part of the email we all care about is:

The bill did have a hearing and already was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. It passed 12-0 out of committee.

It’s nice to see it made it out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously, hopefully it will move easily through the rest of the process.

Update(1/17/2011):It has been passed to the rules committee to decide on a second reading.

Here’s a list of the Rules Committee:

Update (1/30/2011): Found an article in the Kitsap Sun.

What I really liked seeing though was (emphasis mine):

No one spoke against legalizing the use of suppressors and a half-dozen supported their use at a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, is one of the Senate bill’s four sponsors.

Update (2/7/2011):The bill just passed the house.